Difference Between Kenko Pro 300 AF 1.4 and Kenko Teleplus MC4 1.4x
Jan 2, 2017 13:38:43 #
imagemeister wrote:
Again, the 2X Pro is 7 elements, the 1.4X Pro is 5 elements and elements are larger than the 1.4X MC4, the 1.4X MC4 is 4 elements. The MC4 has out performed the PRO and the Canon 1.4X III in a German testing with the Canon 70-200 f4L ! And, I don't care what it says on the Kenko site - because it WRONG.
I forgot who I was exchanging posts with. Of course you are right. I mean, what does Kenko know about it, they just designed and make them.
Jan 2, 2017 15:47:01 #
robertjerl wrote:
I forgot who I was exchanging posts with. Of course you are right. I mean, what does Kenko know about it, they just designed and make them.
What the Engineers know isn't necessarily what gets on a Web site. As I noted above their data on the length of the 1.4 PRO is obviously wrong.
They also might be confused about the Nikon AF designation. They appear to be using AF as a generic acronym for autofocus.
Also their table contradicts the claim that the PRO is limited to Prime lenses.
Jan 2, 2017 16:33:53 #
MtnMan wrote:
What the Engineers know isn't necessarily what gets on a Web site. As I noted above their data on the length of the 1.4 PRO is obviously wrong.
They also might be confused about the Nikon AF designation. They appear to be using AF as a generic acronym for autofocus.
most people use AF for autofocus, in English, this was written in Japanese and then translated.
Also their table contradicts the claim that the PRO is limited to Prime lenses.
They also might be confused about the Nikon AF designation. They appear to be using AF as a generic acronym for autofocus.
most people use AF for autofocus, in English, this was written in Japanese and then translated.
Also their table contradicts the claim that the PRO is limited to Prime lenses.
again this could be due to translation problems, designed for primes, but will work with "some" zooms, lots of things designed for one use turn out to be good for other uses also, and in a few cases are actually better at those uses than the designed use
Jan 2, 2017 17:32:07 #
robertjerl wrote:
again this could be due to translation problems, designed for primes, but will work with "some" zooms, lots of things designed for one use turn out to be good for other uses also, and in a few cases are actually better at those uses than the designed use
Yes, translation could be part of the problem. Miscommunication between departments also causes errors.
Bottom line: be skeptical of what is on Web pages.
Jan 2, 2017 17:34:01 #
robertjerl wrote:
again this could be due to translation problems, designed for primes, but will work with "some" zooms, lots of things designed for one use turn out to be good for other uses also, and in a few cases are actually better at those uses than the designed use
If you are designing a device for Nikon lenses you need to understand and communicate to customers with Nikon's specific meaning of acronyms.
Jan 2, 2017 18:42:41 #
MtnMan wrote:
Yes, translation could be part of the problem. Miscommunication between departments also causes errors.
Bottom line: be skeptical of what is on Web pages.
Bottom line: be skeptical of what is on Web pages.
But in the case of Kenko's spec page for the pro 300 1.4X it has been that way for as long as I can remember. I check every few months to see if they have an upgrade worth getting to replace the one I have had since 2014. If it was wrong you would think someone would have complained and they would have corrected it. And then the fact that there seems to be a higher grade, more expensive "E" version with different specs that I have seen references to but no official literature.
On the spec page for the 2.0X the top line shows 2.0/1.4 for magnafication and the elements groups line has 7 elements 4 groups/5 elements 4 groups. For some reason they give the info for both.
I think most of the problem is language.
I like to joke that the literature is first written by an engineer who speaks, Japanese, mathmatics and geek - then translated by a clerk who speaks Japanese and took English lessons from a Mongolian who once saw a movie with English subtitles. Then the translation was approved by a Jr Assistant Vice President of Public Relations SciFi nut who learned to read English by reading Star Wars novels and his favorite character is Yoda.
Jan 3, 2017 00:48:09 #
robertjerl wrote:
But in the case of Kenko's spec page for the pro 3... (show quote)
Something like that.
The Chinese seem to have even more difficulty with English. But maybe not more difficulty than I would have with Chinese.
Jan 15, 2017 17:06:39 #
The 1.4 Pro arrived today.
It works a little better than expected. The mechanical build and fit are good. The lens removal latch works fine.
So far I've tried it with my Sigma 17-50 and Nikon 55-300 on my D5300. The latter is what I plan to use it with most. It worked flawlessly with both. One surprise: the camera reads the actual fstop with the teleconverter. The 55-300 has a min f-stop of 5.6 at 300mm. The camera shows f8 at the minimum. Autofocus works fine.
The last is a little surprise as I thought the D5300 autofocus wouldn't work above f5.6. So now I am comfortable that the D5300 will also autofocus with the tele on my 200-500.
It works a little better than expected. The mechanical build and fit are good. The lens removal latch works fine.
So far I've tried it with my Sigma 17-50 and Nikon 55-300 on my D5300. The latter is what I plan to use it with most. It worked flawlessly with both. One surprise: the camera reads the actual fstop with the teleconverter. The 55-300 has a min f-stop of 5.6 at 300mm. The camera shows f8 at the minimum. Autofocus works fine.
The last is a little surprise as I thought the D5300 autofocus wouldn't work above f5.6. So now I am comfortable that the D5300 will also autofocus with the tele on my 200-500.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.